B
Bisson820
New member
That the best mastering comes in when you dont have to do much because the mix is solid?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
To some extent, yes. But a solid mix doesn't necessarily mean there isn't much to do...
cobaltaudio
New member
If you've got a properly solid mix, then mastering is undoubtedly easier than on mix you have to batter to get half-decent. But no, not necessarily less to do.. just simpler.
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Simpler is usually less though, isn't it?
Don't see the distinction you're trying to make there.
Cheers
Don't see the distinction you're trying to make there.
Cheers
cobaltaudio
New member
In that mastering can involve various different processes; dynamic control, eq, conversion to 5.1 etc. etc.
My point is that for a "good" mix you might use the exact same processes as on a terrible mix, for example a bit of equalisation and some dynamic control, and let's say some subtle reverb.
However, it's usually simpler and quicker to get those sounding right on a decent mix than on a rubbish one. I suppose yes you would need more time and work on it, but it might be the same process.
Anyway, I think to answer the OP question, it's easier to get a better final product with a good mix, but "the best mastering" is probably a bit misleading because it's too subjective.
My point is that for a "good" mix you might use the exact same processes as on a terrible mix, for example a bit of equalisation and some dynamic control, and let's say some subtle reverb.
However, it's usually simpler and quicker to get those sounding right on a decent mix than on a rubbish one. I suppose yes you would need more time and work on it, but it might be the same process.
Anyway, I think to answer the OP question, it's easier to get a better final product with a good mix, but "the best mastering" is probably a bit misleading because it's too subjective.
Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up.
Cheers
Cheers
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
In some cases, if the mix is good enough, it doesn't even need mastering. 
JimmyS1969
MOODerator
Or if it isn't worth a crap to begin with, why waste your time. lol!
Bull-stuff aside, mastering IMO, has more to do with a qualified ear, giving an outside reference point to how the project sounds as a whole. I have personally finished a mix with a cello accent track, that was not in the final mix. Why? Because I had heard it so many times, that I heard it in my own head. It was accidentally muted, and I had no clue. Spending hours/weeks on a project, distorts ones ability to be objective. Mastering to me, is more about giving a talented 'second' ear to find balance in a production.
Even though I am stuck with doing some mastering on my own mixes, I ALWAYS recommend mastering be done by a professional. No matter what the added cost is. Money well spent IMO, always.
Bull-stuff aside, mastering IMO, has more to do with a qualified ear, giving an outside reference point to how the project sounds as a whole. I have personally finished a mix with a cello accent track, that was not in the final mix. Why? Because I had heard it so many times, that I heard it in my own head. It was accidentally muted, and I had no clue. Spending hours/weeks on a project, distorts ones ability to be objective. Mastering to me, is more about giving a talented 'second' ear to find balance in a production.
Even though I am stuck with doing some mastering on my own mixes, I ALWAYS recommend mastering be done by a professional. No matter what the added cost is. Money well spent IMO, always.
J
jmz93
New member
Exactly! In fact, if the mix is truly excellent, the challenge is not screwing it up.
By the way, the new Opeth album, Heritage, sounds wonderful! I'm liking Wallace's mixing on Dream Theater's latest as well, although of course I wish it wasn't compressed/limited quite so much. The Opeth is a breath of fresh air though - wow ... actual dynamic range!
CTS Mastering, Clear True Sound!
cobaltaudio
New member
Absolutely spot on!
projectmix101
New member
I wonder how many "professional" recordings have made it with no mastering. Any idea? (Not being sarcastic--truly wondering). I'm only just beginning to hear the more subtle differences that come with mastering. Or not so subtle.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
If you mean - How many professional recordings don't go through the typical mastering process?
So few, that it literally makes front-page industry news when it happens. Iron Maiden's (2006? 2007?) release comes to mind.
And ideally, the differences should be subtle. Translation and cohesiveness - On truly fine recordings, that's more or less the entire goal.
Tunes that "make it" are probably going to "make it" with or without. The mastering process is simply "touching up" -- Makeup -- A detailing of sorts.
A 1967 Chevelle SS-396 in nice, well-cared for, garage kept condition might be a great car. Take it to a body shop and have it buffed out, polished, maybe a little ding-dent or two carefully hammered out so it looks like it just came off the showroom floor and it's still going to be the same car. It'll certainly turn a few more heads - It'll look more impressive - side-by-side it'll probably "look" faster. The car is no different -- It's just made to look as good as it potentially can. The strong parts are highlighted, the weak points are minimized or masked, and it's readied-up for presentation to the public -- Just like when mastering a recording.
So few, that it literally makes front-page industry news when it happens. Iron Maiden's (2006? 2007?) release comes to mind.
And ideally, the differences should be subtle. Translation and cohesiveness - On truly fine recordings, that's more or less the entire goal.
Tunes that "make it" are probably going to "make it" with or without. The mastering process is simply "touching up" -- Makeup -- A detailing of sorts.
A 1967 Chevelle SS-396 in nice, well-cared for, garage kept condition might be a great car. Take it to a body shop and have it buffed out, polished, maybe a little ding-dent or two carefully hammered out so it looks like it just came off the showroom floor and it's still going to be the same car. It'll certainly turn a few more heads - It'll look more impressive - side-by-side it'll probably "look" faster. The car is no different -- It's just made to look as good as it potentially can. The strong parts are highlighted, the weak points are minimized or masked, and it's readied-up for presentation to the public -- Just like when mastering a recording.
Last edited:
karumba
New member
of course. but the better the mix, the more do the sonics count. so time wise its not much faster (at least for me).